To really dislike Bridget Phillipson?

[Sensiblyplease]

I just absolutely can’t stand the woman.

The lady seems to be making decisions based on personal prejudices and causing intentional division in our education system.
She’s not listening to anyone, and the consequences her decisions are having is far too impactful to ignore. As someone in her power she should model balanced politics, based on evidence, instead of in-sighting hate and division.

My children are in state school- we’ve had 3
more children come into their year group with SEN but no EHCPs as their previous independent schools could cope without one. The parents inform me it’ll take a few years and that’s if they get one- and then they can either go back to their previous independent school (as apparently they won’t have to pay VAT with an ECHP?) or have the help they need according to the results of the ECHP.

Im just so angry. I have nothing against these children and can understand they can’t afford the VAT increase and needed to move back into state schools, but it’s now really disrupted the class. The TA is apparently out the class all the time now and the class teacher has 32 children on her own. It appears that Bridget’s insistence and personal hate against the private sector is damaging to state school children. It’s really pissing me off - our children’s education is important and not to be messed around with.

I feel like the woman likes a good headline but is prepared to throw our children’s education away in order to meet her personal objectives / vendettas.

What is she actually doing for state schools? Her headline grabbing titles is deflecting from her actually trying to improve state education in any meaningful and impactful way. 6500 teachers - so my kids get 1/3 of a teacher for their school? That’s shocking. More children entering the state system now puts pressure on their school, and their teachers. What is she actually doing to address this. Where is she magic-ing these trained and qualified teachers from? What is she doing to retain teachers and help with their current work load?

I’m fed up with her agenda effecting normal people. We need someone with a level head to sort schools out. End of rant!

I don’t think you can possibly look at Eton and the fanciest private schools and say the real inequality is in the state sector.

Not saying that all private schools are like Eton, but that Eton is a private school.

@edwinbear private schools' charitable
contributions are, in the overwhelming number of cases, nugatory.

There are around 2,600 private schools. 1 of which is Eton. Very very few are anything remotely like Eton. That’s like saying that the very best state school, or the very worst, are representative of the state system. The difference between the bottom and top state schools is far wider than the difference between the average private and average state school.

Honestly, I reckon I can.

There are over 10 million school kids in the UK. There are about 1000 at Eton, which is 0.01% of kids. Even if you were to say that Eton is significant/a source of inequality, it's balanced out by state schools like Hills Road Sixth form college and Brampton Manor Academy - who send more to Oxbridge than Eton do. There are plenty of big name state schools, eg London Oratory - which notably Tony Blair used for his kids. And this is really what I'm saying - the Labour govt are apparently fighting inequality, whilst ensuring that their own children receive the very best education our nation offers - as long as it's under the "state" banner and they can pretend they are just like normal people in run down towns that have poorly performing comps (I live in one such place).

This is what makes me so irate. People who have access to excellent state schools berating those of us who don't - and have broken ourselves paying to make the situation better. My DCs achieved better GCSE results at their private school than any child at our local comp - because it's really not great. My DCs worked their guts out til midnight revising and they are just written off as rich bastards who bought their results. If I had access to the school that Reeves went to or Blair's kids went to, then I'd have sent my kids there.

Why are we pretending all state schools are the same? It's a major reason why people turn to private schools - because they don't have access to the great state schools.

Then state schools users to pay to lift state schools! Don’t using equality to decorate robbery act!

My comment applied to all Tory voters complaining bitterly about three months of a Labour government when some of us suffered for 14 long, miserable years under their favoured regime. That was obvious.

The people complaining about Labour aren’t all Tory voters! You only have see the threads with posters regretting being a Labour voter.

If they operate as a charity then the main relief is from corporation tax on their profit/surplus. I know most operate as not for profit but that same as not having a taxable profit, especially schools that have a high level of capital investment into buildings

Did she rule out a rise in income tax, or was it income tax for working people? I wouldn’t suprised if income tax on dividends went up or they could even not raise income tax at all and add national insurance to dividends

They can also apply for Gift Aid on donations, plus donors who are higher rate taxpayers can claim tax relief. They are also exempt from stamp duty on the purchase of land. It would be interesting to see how much this has cost the Treasury.

Or saying they are. Anyone can say anything anonymously.

I noticed that too.

Bonkers.

Just to add to this discussion I can confirm this person to be a cold , calculating , characterless bully , how on earth she is sitting in a privileged position is astounding , please read some of the posts in Sunderland Corruption , BTW her seat is probably one of the safest in the country so looks like she can remain smug and superior until such time she is exposed for the real character behind the charade .

There are over 10 million school kids in the UK. There are about 1000 at Eton, which is 0.01% of kids. Even if you were to say that Eton is significant/a source of inequality, it's balanced out by state schools like Hills Road Sixth form college and Brampton Manor Academy - who send more to Oxbridge than Eton do.

And prime ministers?

Private school exodus could be twice as bad as predicted.

Author of report used by Labour to defend VAT raid warns that as many as 90,000 pupils could switch to state schools.

Well done Luke.

To increase equality, obviously many people will have to have less, to make sure other people have more. This policy is one step on that road. The money isn’t even coming through yet so of course it’s not hit the state schools yet. But those who have more need to get used to the idea that fairness means they will have to pay more into the system . Education is a good place to start but the principle will need to be applied to many areas. People with little really have nothing, I work for a charity and have done for over a decade and I have never seen things so bad. And it’s something the state can fix.

I particularly disagree with your last sentence.

The world is not egalitarian - similar to the nature,
some flourish, some merely survive. No amount of social engineering can fix that.

Try not to level down and just make everyone poorer

Labour have already rowed back on some policy due to a very late realisation on behaviour. Why they can only see this as chancellor at this point is concerning and odd but there you go

This policy is along the same lines and should go

The more the government take off people, the less of an incentive there is to work harder. What’s the point in working harder, for longer hours, if you end up no better off? The problem with this approach is that there comes a point (which we are pretty much at now) where people won’t work as hard, or they’ll look at moving to other countries which rewards and encourages.

This is the problem with the pension credit system. We are in a position where those who haven’t worked as much during their life, haven’t made any private provision, are financially better off that those who worked, contributed more, and tried to save for their retirement. What is the point in working hard when those who haven’t end up with more?

Those who earn more, already contribute more via NI contribution and tax. I know of lots of people who won't work more as it will affect their benefits. So, a blanket those who have less need to have more is not as straight forward a problem to solve as you suggest. Firstly, if they can't afford more they need to seriously consider working more. Full time workers should not need top up UC, companies should be enforced by law to pay adequately. Childcare is too expensive. So as a charity worker, you will know this is a complex problem with multiple solutions and no easy fix. There is so much wrong with the country but to suggest higher earners should always be the ones to pay more is in my opinion, ridiculous. Look at the pay needed to be a net contributor.
Using, the VAT on fees as an example, Sir Keir's children cost more to educate than a lower earner on say £40,000 using an independent school. The money not used to educate their children is then "back in the pot" and used for everyone in the state system. 50% of the highest earners use the state system. This tax just makes the 7% responsible for the majority. Why not make higher earners in the state system, who are actually using it pay more? Why is it the responsibility of private school parents who aren't using the system to pay for high earners using the state system? If we want to spend more on education this is the responsibility of the entire country. You will run out of other people's money to spend.

I have already had conversations with people who say they will move their kids to state because of the policy and it means that instead of both parents working full time one will ditch their job completely or both will reduce hours. Because however many thousands has just been freed up and they can step back. So less tax income for the government. And personally i think the rhetoric of ‘those with the broadest shoulders’ is flawed anyway. Those who have the broadest shoulders tend to be net contributors and the very ones who are propping up the system already. Yet get told they are just rich arseholes who deserve to be squeezed to death. Its flawed and counter productive IMO. We are net contributors and over the years have talked about migrating to my home country. But in general terms. Yesterday we had the conversation with intent.

Being wealthier isn’t down to working harder. It’s down to good fortune essentially. Plenty of people on the minimum wage work hard!

People on pension credit are amongst the poorest of the poor. You are really struggling if you’re a pensioner on pension credit.

Think it’s unlikely you’ll be squeezed to death financially…

No-one has an entitlement to a private education.

I didn’t say minimum wage employees don’t work hard. Being wealthier often is down to working hard though. It’s often not just good fortune. Working 14 hour days, travelling for work and being away from family for days on end etc. Sitting professional exams, studying for years, on top of their jobs etc. Why would people do that if they end up with little more than people who do 9-5 (or less) in a stress free job?

With regard to pension credit, some (not all) have worked little in their life. They have ended up with a higher income, due to the pension credit system, than those who’ve slogged their guts out to save a tiny bit towards their retirement. They would have been better off not trying to save a little bit.

There are really good arguments on both sides of the issue. Perhaps what BP and the govt have got wrong is the amount of tax they are asking for. 20% is a lot - and I say this as we really felt it when our mortgage, which is our largest outgoing, went up by 2%. It's the 20% that seems to be generating all this fuss on Mumsnet, with threats of driving people from private to state, as it's such a ludicrous amount to ask for. Even the IFS report costed for 15% max.

This policy has a chance of some success if they had asked for maybe 5% off this fundraising route, and got more out of other taxation routes, which could be more clearly earmarked for education. Few or no parents may need to move for that much increase, so there might actually be something made for the tax purse.

I understand all VAT just goes into a general pot too, so there's no way for taxpayers to hold them accountable for extra spend on education, with corresponding results. That's what I'm irritated by - she talks a good game, but I would respect it more if she was being sensible about it and putting money where the govt mouth is. Right now I think the 20% "ask" is too much of a risk to work at all. Let's see if the budget actually does identify other sources of funding to help the sector, and not just this tax.